phillipabatzfandomcom-20200214-history
Discussion of Meritocracy
The Rulesets I believe that this ruleset forms the highest level of Rules of Meritocracy. :0. Every ruleset of Meritocracy can be shown to have an absent but necessary transformation of the values of contributions. :1. Rulesets of Meritocracy continue to persist through time despite transformations of valuation. :2. There are rulesets of Meritocracy that describe the transformation of valuations. :3. All rulesets of Meritocracy are formed or transformed through a process of reason upon data concerning the valuation of contributions. :4. All rulesets of Meritocracy are expressed in rational terms. (... or are they???) :5. All rulesets of Meritocracy speak of a first state or condition, a process, and a resulting state that is produced by this process acting upon the first state, and the values assigned to this first state, the process, and the final state. If this ruleset of Meritocracy is anywhere near being accurate, then I may have to revise my opinion that Godel's Proof is inaccurate. If Godel's Proof can ever be regarded as demonstrating the value of its own transformations and processes, then I would definitely have to consider it as valuable. If it cannot be regarded as demonstrating its own processes, than we face the possibility that such a proof might result in an infinite recursion of process-valuation! This ruleset could have several nested layers. If we think of the physical Universe as having an implicit ruleset, much like the implicit software of any cybernetic system, then the more explicit thoughts of beings such as ourselves would be systems within systems, much like a nested set of: real CPU --> game of Life --> virtual CPU --> virtualized game of Life -->-->--> (etc.) And yes, there is a proof that a virtual CPU can be built within a game of Life, but it would require spectacular amounts of computing power. Fortunately for you and I, the Universe we live in sets the upper bound for computational efficiency in a quantum (or better?) hardware system! I personally am anticipating the day we learn to code in assembly language! "Creo Lux!" P:D Or, the simple version: 0. There is always a contribution of exceptional positive or negative value to every system of value assignment. 1. There are always rules of value assignment. 2. There are rules about making rules of value assignment. 3. There are rules about breaking rules of value assignment. 4. And the REASON''' that there are always rules of value assignment is because...'' 5. There are always '''''CONSEQUENCES to assigning values rationally in their specific instances, irrationally in their inherent and rationally fundamental value, properly or improperly in that specific instances can fail to be valued rationally, and that generalized standards of value can fail to be fundamental in their origins, or sufficiently accurate in their logic implications of development. (Okay, that last one is a bit verbose, but it's still very much better than the empty inheritance of Meritocratic Rank in a Society.) The Good News: The accurate assignments of Merit double in benefits (tangible and intangible), and halve in costs (ditto) every two years or so. The Bad News: The inaccurate assignments of Merit double in costs, and halve in benefits every two years or so. Each of you has an inkling of which rule applies to whom. Right, Sannse? Category:Meritocracy Category:Modality Category:Philosophy Category:Social Philosophy Category:Philosophical Practice